In the case of Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General v. Michelle Thomas et al., 2005, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal law that prohibited anyone from teaching or demonstrating how to make a destructive device applied to websites and other forms of electronic communication. The respondents argued that this violated their First Amendment rights as it limited their freedom of speech online. However, the court ruled in favor of Gonzales (the Attorney General), stating that while there are protections for free speech under the First Amendment, these do not extend to actions which could potentially cause harm or incite illegal activity - such as instructing others on how to create weapons or explosive devices.

In the dissenting opinion for Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General v. Michelle Thomas et al., 2005, Justice O'Connor argued that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) does not give Congress the authority to regulate intrastate, noncommercial cultivation and use of marijuana for personal medical purposes as recommended by a patient's physician in accordance with state law. She contended that such regulation is beyond Congress' Commerce Clause power because it does not have substantial effects on interstate commerce. Furthermore, she believed this case was about states’ rights to experiment with social and economic policy without federal interference - a principle deeply rooted in American federalism tradition.